‘Pre-emptive military strikes against terrorist targets overseas are required for national self-defence and the legal basis on which they are carried out should be made more explicit to deal with increasing threat levels, the UK’s attorney general is due to say on Wednesday.’

‘The Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP, James Eadie QC, Jason Coppel QC, Tom Cross and Christopher Knight have been named as the counsel who will ask the High Court to reject a claim that legal obstacles stand in the way of Government giving effect to the referendum result and triggering Article 50.’

‘More than 7 years after Gordon Brown first announced that a public Inquiry would be conducted to identify lessons that could be learned from the Iraq conflict, the Chilcot report was finally published on7 July 2016. However, it was worth the wait. This post does not seek to summarise the report: there are many other good overviews (such as the BBC’s ). The report’s executive summary, in particular the key findings section, is also well worth a read. The intention is to cover in this and subsequent posts some of the key legal issues raised by the report. This post considers the relevance of the Chilcot report’s findings to the broader issue of whether Britain’s intervention in Iraq was legal – an issue which was not itself within the remit of the inquiry.’

‘Judges shouldn’t be frightened to set precedents. A list of those that have “gone too far” – including over a Guardian freedom of information request on the Prince of Wales’s letters – risks deterring justice.’